Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by tadmjones

  1. Being long time married and attending a large family gathering my odds seem fowl at breast.
  2. I was referring to the mechanism that permits voters to vote for certain services to be provided.
  3. My larger point was that your stance necessitates "squaring majority rule" with a government based on the sole function of protecting individual rights.
  4. Given the hypothetical state, one I assume that is based on the principle that the sole purpose of is the protection of individual rights, where does majority rule of acceptable services provided, come in ? And how would government provided services even somehow funded without coercion in any sense , by possible or more desirable then those that would arise from the actions of free individuals in the open market?
  5. lol Louie the agressor and DA the sanctioning victim
  6. Fred May the force be with you, I think I see my exit
  7. Fred re #96 Why would you characterize the actions of the police in that situation as an initiation of force ?
  8. In a societal context, force is either moral or immoral. The initiation of force is immoral, not because it could or may be otherwise, but because of the nature of the act, its identity. Force is not simultaneously both at the same time and then becomes one or the other. The concept of ' the use of force' is amoral, specific actions of specific entities can be either moral or immoral when properly identified.
  9. Fred I misinterptretted your question re #88, no my statement so worded would not make sense. The statement about green makes sense, because of the identity of the color green and the identity of volition. Though perhaps it would be more(?) true to say my understanding of their respective identitites, they definately have identity, but I could have an incorrect understanding
  10. The phenomenon of 'force' in general? or a specific instance of a moral agent 'using force' in regard me ?
  11. I was speaking to the difference between 'deciding to label' and 'identifying'. I could identify the color green, but I could not make a normative disctinction between or in reference to it , the color, and its relation to my volition.
  12. With your rewording I do not think people , even those unfamiliar with O'ism, would have difficulty accepting the validity of the moral estimations of force , given the qualifiers. It seems the problem you are having is equivocating 'deciding to label' something with identifying what the something is, which I believe is the point SN keeps refering to.
  13. I think the discussion has come off the rails because the OP started with the strawman that O'ism considers the use of force as immoral, without the distinction of 'initiation' of force as compared to the use of retalitory force.
  14. Andie Are you saying that Rand was mistaken to take the Law of Identity as an axiom, or that knowledge understood prior negates current meaning ? I'm confused about the point you are trying to make.
  15. As symbols on paper or verbal utterances "A is A" could be described as not 'having meaning', but in the context of O'ism it is meant as an explicit statement or understanding of the Law of Identity. What have we "already labeled"?
  16. I meant in practical legalistic/governmental terms. Minimum legal age requirements for contract enforcement is not an example of a double standard. If a government identified a certain group and proscribed some action or other directed toward or invovling anyone in that group, but then ignored those same strictures and did not apply them to some members of the identified group , I would describe such action as caprisious or arbitrary , and not necessarily an example of a double standard. There are phenomenon that are examples of double standards, but they invovle forming opinions about people or situations . Older men dating younger women vs cougars , and then claiming the standard should be age alone.
  17. In practical terms , can there really 'be' a double standard? Doesn't standard presuppose uniformity, dictionary definitions notwithstanding. Perhaps you mean dual standards. It would be a stretch to consider a society that employs dual or multi standards as one based on reason.
  18. Fredanyman In #42 if contract law requires a minimum age of 18 yrs to enter a legally binding argreement, how is that an example of a double standard? Wouldn't a double standard mean that some 18 yr olds could not enter into contracts or that some 16 yr olds could?
  19. jon touche, yes the only remedy would be the only remedy, but not what I meant in spirit. I took the quote in the OP to mean that Rand would see the cessation of industry as the last resort. I meant by negligence the common usage of the term. One should be held morally accountable for one's actions and in division of labor society this would/should be expressed in laws concerning property rights and identiying violations and by extension regulating abuses of 'polluters'. If I were to start a garbage incineration business(or even just a hobby) it would be my responsiblitiy to know what the ramifications of such activities may be. You state the ecologists would be the victims of force, could you clarify what you mean ?
  20. You would have to prove that the industry is initiating force. Which would mean defining the byproducts of their activities to be a health hazrd and that they were negligent , with in some standard of reasonableness, as to the handling of the byproducts. If the only remedy is the cessation of the industry , than we already have Rand's answer, yes?
  21. Off topic but interesting, while 'wiki-ing' JSM and Utilitarianism I saw this "As to the origin of the word 'Utilitarianism' Mill acknowledged in a footnote that, though "believing himself to be the first person who brought the word utilitarian into use. He did not invent it, but adopted it from a passing expression in Mr. Galt's Annals of the Parish" Annals of the Parish is by the Scottish novelist John Galt.
  22. "Willful" negligence and any harm that it may cause is an intiation of force. If governement is the agency and mechanism with which a civilized society deals with, retaliates against, the intiation of force then yes the 'government has the right', but only it is only in that context that the idea of a governemnt having a 'right(s)' makes any sense.
  23. I agree with the filter of reasonableness.
  24. Not the OP as much as what 'preserving the natural environment' would mean . That usually implies the environment minus all activities of humankind, the 'pristine earth' notion.
  25. 'so?' like' hmm what to do what to do' It was a humorous (at least to me) aside. On a serious note , do you consider man or humankind as outside the scope of nature ?
×
×
  • Create New...